How Iran Gained Strategic Leverage After Recent Wars

HOST

From DailyListen, I'm Alex. Today: Richard Haass’s assessment that Iran actually has more leverage now than before the war. It sounds counterintuitive, right? We’ve seen headlines about damaged factories and reduced attacks. To help us understand this gap between the official rhetoric and the strategic reality, we’re joined by Marcus, our economics analyst.

MARCUS

Thanks for having me, Alex. It’s a vital distinction to make. When we look at the raw data, we have to separate immediate tactical damage from long-term strategic positioning. Yes, US and Israeli strikes over the past five weeks have been intense. We’re seeing reports that roughly two-thirds of Iran’s production facilities are damaged or destroyed, and that their missile and drone attacks are down significantly—by about 90 percent, according to some assessments. But here’s the rub: military analysts and intelligence sources are telling us that a large percentage of Iran’s coastal defense cruise missiles remain untouched. Furthermore, thousands of one-way attack drones and about half of their mobile missile launchers are still fully operational. So, while the immediate ability to launch massive, sustained salvos is temporarily curtailed, the core infrastructure that gives Iran its regional reach is largely intact. They aren't disarmed; they’ve just been forced into a defensive posture, which is a very different thing from being neutralized as a regional power.

HOST

So, even though their production lines are hit and their current attack volume is way down, they still have a massive, hidden arsenal that keeps them in the game. That’s a tough pill to swallow if you’re expecting a quick victory. But why does Haass specifically call this "leverage"?

MARCUS

That’s the core of the debate. Leverage in this context isn't just about how many missiles you can fire today; it’s about the cost you can impose on your adversaries tomorrow. By keeping these mobile launchers and drone stockpiles hidden and functional, Iran maintains a credible threat. They’ve essentially decentralized their military power. Think of it like a business that loses its main headquarters but keeps all its regional offices fully stocked and autonomous. They can’t run the same business they did last month, but they can still disrupt the entire industry. Haass argues that because these capabilities cannot be fully eliminated through air power alone, the geopolitical landscape has shifted. Iran now holds a stronger hand because the cost of permanently removing that remaining threat is prohibitively high for the US and Israel. They’ve proven they can survive a sustained campaign, and that resilience itself is a form of leverage that forces other nations to account for them indefinitely. [CLIP_START]

HOST

That’s a sobering way to put it. It’s like saying they’ve survived the worst, and just by standing, they’ve changed the rules. But let me push back here. We’re hearing from official sources that their navy is wiped out and their factories are in ruins. Isn't there a risk we’re overstating their remaining power?

MARCUS

That’s a fair skepticism, Alex. It’s easy to get caught up in the binary of "victory" or "defeat." But look at the intelligence reports coming out of CNN and other outlets. The intel specifically says that while production is crippled, the existing arsenal is only partially depleted. If you’re a regional power, your goal isn't necessarily to win a total air war; it’s to ensure you can’t be removed from the board. By preserving those mobile launchers, Iran has maintained a "fleet-in-being" strategy. They remain a constant, looming threat that requires the US to keep massive resources in the region. That isn't a sign of a defeated nation. It’s the sign of a nation that has successfully transitioned to a war of attrition. They’ve traded their ability to dominate the skies for the ability to survive the campaign, which, in the cold calculus of geopolitics, is a form of success that forces everyone else to keep negotiating with them. [CLIP_END]

HOST

So it’s less about winning the fight and more about not losing the capacity to threaten. That makes sense. But let’s look at the broader picture. You mentioned the regional players. If Iran has this leverage, who are the winners and losers here? Haass has some pretty strong opinions on this.

MARCUS

Haass is quite clear that the conventional winners aren't who you might expect. He argues that China and Russia are the clear beneficiaries of this conflict. Why? Because they’ve maintained their standing while the US has been bogged down in a costly, inconclusive campaign. The Gulf Arab states, meanwhile, have taken a significant reputational hit. They’re seen as being caught in the middle, unable to influence the outcome while their own security environment becomes more volatile. The United States, according to Haass, has gained the least. We’ve spent immense political and military capital without achieving a decisive result. This ties into his broader critique of American foreign policy over the last two decades. He’s been very vocal that this is not a "golden age" for our diplomacy. When you look at the economic struggles in China or the expiring nuclear deals with Russia, the US is being pulled in too many directions. This war has distracted us from those larger, structural challenges.

HOST

It sounds like a total mismatch of objectives. We wanted to neutralize a threat, but we ended up just creating a regional headache while our rivals watched from the sidelines. But what about the nuclear program? Everyone is wondering if these strikes actually set that back at all.

MARCUS

That is actually one of the most critical gaps in our current information. We simply don't have enough data to know the status of Iran’s nuclear program following these strikes. We know the US focused heavily on conventional military targets—missile launchers, drone facilities, and ships—but the public record is silent on whether the nuclear infrastructure was a primary target or if it sustained any meaningful damage. It’s a massive unknown. If the nuclear program remains untouched, then the strategic leverage we discussed earlier is multiplied significantly. It would mean that even after five weeks of intense bombardment, the most dangerous part of Iran’s capability is still fully intact. This lack of clarity is exactly why Haass and other analysts are warning that we shouldn't expect much from any upcoming talks. If Iran still holds the nuclear card, they have zero incentive to make major concessions, regardless of the damage done to their conventional drone factories.

HOST

That uncertainty is terrifying. It means we could be looking at a much longer, more dangerous road ahead than the headlines suggest. And what about the human element? We’re talking about military hardware, but what’s the actual toll on the ground, both for the combatants and the civilians?

MARCUS

We have to acknowledge that this is a major gap in the available data. There is very little verified reporting on casualty figures, whether military or civilian. When we talk about "strikes," we’re talking about military assets being destroyed, but the human cost of those operations is currently shielded from public view. This makes it very difficult to assess the internal pressure on the Iranian leadership. Without knowing the scale of the losses, we can’t accurately predict how the regime might react or if there’s any potential for internal instability. We’re left analyzing the war through the lens of hardware and strategic movement, which can feel detached from the reality of the conflict. It’s a reminder that while we look at these high-level geopolitical shifts, there’s an entire layer of the story—the human and societal impact—that we are currently unable to see or quantify with any real confidence.

HOST

It’s a good reminder to stay humble about what we actually know. We’re looking at a puzzle with half the pieces missing. But if we look at the history here, is there any reason to think this cooperation with North Korea makes the situation even more complicated than we realize?

MARCUS

It’s a huge factor. Historical analysis shows that Iran’s missile and rocket programs didn't just appear out of thin air; they evolved through long-term, deep-seated cooperation with North Korea. This isn't just about importing parts; it’s about shared expertise, engineering, and tactical doctrine. This relationship provides Iran with a level of resilience that’s hard to break. They have a partner who has spent decades perfecting the art of surviving under intense international pressure while maintaining a credible, hidden deterrent. If you look at how North Korea hides its own assets, you see the blueprint for what Iran is doing now. It means this "leverage" isn't a temporary accident of the war; it’s a designed feature of their military philosophy. They’ve built a system that is meant to be hit, to be degraded, but never fully destroyed. That’s a very difficult problem for any military to solve, and it explains why Haass is so skeptical about the prospects of a quick resolution.

HOST

So they’ve essentially been studying the ultimate master of this strategy. That’s a sobering thought. But I have to ask: is there anyone who disagrees with Haass? We’ve got this picture of a stalemate, but there must be a counter-argument to the idea that this was a failure.

MARCUS

Oh, absolutely. There’s a very vocal contingent, including historians like Niall Ferguson, who support the operation. Their argument is that even if the results are messy, action was necessary to demonstrate resolve. They would argue that doing nothing would have been far worse, allowing Iran to expand its influence unchecked. They see the degradation of Iran’s factories and the reduction in attack volume as a necessary step, regardless of the long-term leverage issues. It’s a clash of philosophies: the realist school, represented by Haass, which looks at the net outcome and the long-term geopolitical costs, versus the interventionist school, which prioritizes the immediate need to disrupt an adversary’s momentum. Both sides look at the same data—the destroyed factories, the remaining missiles—and draw completely different conclusions. It’s not just a debate about facts; it’s a debate about what kind of world we’re trying to build and how much risk we’re willing to take to get there.

HOST

That makes sense. It’s a disagreement on goals, not just data. And looking ahead, if the US is entering a period where we have to deal with a weakened but still dangerous Iran, a struggling China, and a Russia with an expiring arms deal, what’s the bottom line for a professional watching this?

MARCUS

The bottom line is that the era of simple, decisive foreign policy outcomes is over. For any business or professional operating across borders, this means volatility is the new baseline. You can no longer assume that a regional conflict will have a clean beginning, middle, and end. You have to account for a world where adversaries have built-in resilience and where the US is stretched thin across multiple, simultaneous crises. Haass’s point is that we’re moving into a more chaotic, less stable global order. The "leverage" Iran now has is just one symptom of this broader trend. Whether you’re looking at supply chains, energy prices, or political risk, you have to plan for a scenario where these regional conflicts remain simmering indefinitely. The days of "mission accomplished" are gone, replaced by a reality of constant, long-term management of risks that don't have clear, permanent solutions. It’s a more complex, less predictable world, and that’s the reality we have to adapt to.

HOST

That was our economics analyst, Marcus. The big takeaway here is that we’re in a new, more complicated phase. While the US and Israel have clearly damaged Iran's production, the core of their military power remains, giving them a level of leverage that wasn't there before. Plus, the broader context—the distraction of the US, the rise of rivals like China and Russia, and the deep, historical links between Iran and North Korea—means this isn't a conflict that’s going to be solved by a few weeks of strikes. It’s a long-term strategic reality we’re all going to have to live with. I’m Alex. Thanks for listening to DailyListen.